Prof M N Panini
The Economic Times
June 1, 1999
Title: Does Sonia's birthplace matter? (Part II of III) Author: Prof M N Panini Publication: The Economic Times Date: June 1, 1999 Sharad Pawar, Purno Sangum and Tariq Anwar have made an issue of the eligibility of persons of foreign origin holding the top three positions of the country. They want this privilege to be reserved only for those born in India. Their logic seems to be that a person born in India imbibes the spirit of patriotism that is vital for making decisions affecting the lives of millions in the country. Patriotism should of course be an essential and a necessary -though not a sufficient - qualification for such a high post. The patriot will sacrifice his or her own interests for the collective interests of the country - a spirit that is essential for nation building. The point at issue here is about the patriotism of naturalised citizens. Pawar and his associates think that naturalised citizens cannot be sufficiently patriotic to hold the post of Prime Minister. Pawar quotes the instance of Indians who have become naturalised citizens of the USA. Since they still feel the tug of the country of their birth, they should not aspire to the highest office in that land. If such a person becomes the President of the USA, she or he will find it awkward to take anti-Indian positions that may be dictated by the job. Worse still, she or he may do things to promote the interests of India at the expense of American interests. This indeed may be the case, but history knows cases of 'traitors' among citizens by birth as well. Surely, this is no ground for the discriminatory treatment of all naturalised citizens. It should be possible to evolve institutions to ensure that the right sorts of naturalised citizens as well as citizens by birth are selected for such important posts. Despite her Italian origin, Ms Sonia Gandhi has impressive cultural credentials to hold the high office of the Prime Minister. She is the bahu of a family that can boast of 'sacrifices' for the country. She has made India her home despite the personal tragedies she suffered. Her children are Indians. Her answer to her critics using such a repertoire of symbols has already touched an emotional chord with the masses. By using evocative symbols and idioms Ms Gandhi has in fact, demonstrated her Indianness on the one hand and her political dexterity on the other. Pawar and his associates, despite their long innings in politics, have been made to look political novices in the process. The question of Ms Gandhi's origin Detracts attention from other relevant issues in the Indian context. One is the issue of dynastic rule and its obverse, the culture of sycophancy that compel even those who want to remain far from politics into becoming prominent politicians and even Prime Ministers. Pawar and his associates, having suffered from such a system are indeed justified in complaining against the culture of sycophancy. The other is the issue of criminalisation of politics in India. When will the Indian political system identify the culprits of various scandals that have rocked the country, including the Bofors scandal, and bring them to book? The only service they seem to have done by raising this issue of Sonia's birthplace is to demonstrate that patriotism can also have a non-Hindutva dimension. We should also not forget that the issue of origin is also an issue of ultimate loyalty. Today, if it is legitimate to raise questions about the loyalty of naturalised citizens, tomorrow it may be considered legitimate to question the loyalty of those who do not speak Hindi! By raising such an issue we only sow the seeds of suspicion and inadvertently evolve a discourse that may engender separatist movements. We cannot afford to forget the impact of Jinnah's two-nation theory that snowballed into a monstrous self-fulfilling prophecy, creating wounds that are still to heal. (Prof M N Panini, Social Science Centre, J L Nehru University)
|
||